Introduction to Probability

Probability theory began in seventeenth century France when the two great French mathematicians, Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat, corresponded over two problems from games of chance. Problems like those Pascal and Fermat solved continued to influence such early researchers as Huygens, Bernoulli, and DeMoivre in establishing a mathematical theory of probability. Today, probability theory is a wellestablished branch of mathematics that finds applications in every area of scholarly activity from music to physics, and in daily experience from weather prediction to predicting the risks of new medical treatments.......

Introduction to Probability Charles M. Grinstead Swarthmore College J. Laurie Snell Dartmouth College To our wives and in memory of Reese T. Prosser Contents 1 Discrete Probability Distributions 1 1.1 Simulation of Discrete Probabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Discrete Probability Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2 Continuous Probability Densities 41 2.1 Simulation of Continuous Probabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.2 Continuous Density Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 3 Combinatorics 75 3.1 Permutations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 3.2 Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 3.3 Card Shuﬄing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 4 Conditional Probability 133 4.1 Discrete Conditional Probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 4.2 Continuous Conditional Probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 4.3 Paradoxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 5 Distributions and Densities 183 5.1 Important Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 5.2 Important Densities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 6 Expected Value and Variance 225 6.1 Expected Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 6.2 Variance of Discrete Random Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 6.3 Continuous Random Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 7 Sums of Random Variables 285 7.1 Sums of Discrete Random Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 7.2 Sums of Continuous Random Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 8 Law of Large Numbers 305 8.1 Discrete Random Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 8.2 Continuous Random Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316 v vi CONTENTS 9 Central Limit Theorem 325 9.1 Bernoulli Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 9.2 Discrete Independent Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 9.3 Continuous Independent Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 10 Generating Functions 365 10.1 Discrete Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 10.2 Branching Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377 10.3 Continuous Densities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394 11 Markov Chains 405 11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405 11.2 Absorbing Markov Chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415 11.3 Ergodic Markov Chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 11.4 Fundamental Limit Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447 11.5 Mean First Passage Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452 12 Random Walks 471 12.1 Random Walks in Euclidean Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471 12.2 Gambler’s Ruin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486 12.3 Arc Sine Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493 Appendices 499 A Normal Distribution Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499 B Galton’s Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500 C Life Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501 Index 503 Preface Probability theory began in seventeenth century France when the two great French mathematicians, Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat, corresponded over two prob- lems from games of chance. Problems like those Pascal and Fermat solved continued to inﬂuence such early researchers as Huygens, Bernoulli, and DeMoivre in estab- lishing a mathematical theory of probability. Today, probability theory is a well- established branch of mathematics that ﬁnds applications in every area of scholarly activity from music to physics, and in daily experience from weather prediction to predicting the risks of new medical treatments. This text is designed for an introductory probability course taken by sophomores, juniors, and seniors in mathematics, the physical and social sciences, engineering, and computer science. It presents a thorough treatment of probability ideas and techniques necessary for a ﬁrm understanding of the subject. The text can be used in a variety of course lengths, levels, and areas of emphasis. For use in a standard one-term course, in which both discrete and continuous probability is covered, students should have taken as a prerequisite two terms of calculus, including an introduction to multiple integrals. In order to cover Chap- ter 11, which contains material on Markov chains, some knowledge of matrix theory is necessary. The text can also be used in a discrete probability course. The material has been organized in such a way that the discrete and continuous probability discussions are presented in a separate, but parallel, manner. This organization dispels an overly rigorous or formal view of probability and oﬀers some strong pedagogical value in that the discrete discussions can sometimes serve to motivate the more abstract continuous probability discussions. For use in a discrete probability course, students should have taken one term of calculus as a prerequisite. Very little computing background is assumed or necessary in order to obtain full beneﬁts from the use of the computing material and examples in the text. All of the programs that are used in the text have been written in each of the languages TrueBASIC, Maple, and Mathematica. This book is on the Web at http://www.dartmouth.edu/˜chance, and is part of the Chance project, which is devoted to providing materials for beginning courses in probability and statistics. The computer programs, solutions to the odd-numbered exercises, and current errata are also available at this site. Instructors may obtain all of the solutions by writing to either of the authors, at [email protected] and [email protected]. It is our intention to place items related to this book at vii viii PREFACE this site, and we invite our readers to submit their contributions. FEATURES Level of rigor and emphasis: Probability is a wonderfully intuitive and applicable ﬁeld of mathematics. We have tried not to spoil its beauty by presenting too much formal mathematics. Rather, we have tried to develop the key ideas in a somewhat leisurely style, to provide a variety of interesting applications to probability, and to show some of the nonintuitive examples that make probability such a lively subject. Exercises: There are over 600 exercises in the text providing plenty of oppor- tunity for practicing skills and developing a sound understanding of the ideas. In the exercise sets are routine exercises to be done with and without the use of a computer and more theoretical exercises to improve the understanding of basic con- cepts. More diﬃcult exercises are indicated by an asterisk. A solution manual for all of the exercises is available to instructors. Historical remarks: Introductory probability is a subject in which the funda- mental ideas are still closely tied to those of the founders of the subject. For this reason, there are numerous historical comments in the text, especially as they deal with the development of discrete probability. Pedagogical use of computer programs: Probability theory makes predictions about experiments whose outcomes depend upon chance. Consequently, it lends itself beautifully to the use of computers as a mathematical tool to simulate and analyze chance experiments. In the text the computer is utilized in several ways. First, it provides a labora- tory where chance experiments can be simulated and the students can get a feeling for the variety of such experiments. This use of the computer in probability has been already beautifully illustrated by William Feller in the second edition of his famous text An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications (New York: Wiley, 1950). In the preface, Feller wrote about his treatment of ﬂuctuation in coin tossing: “The results are so amazing and so at variance with common intuition that even sophisticated colleagues doubted that coins actually misbehave as theory predicts. The record of a simulated experiment is therefore included.” In addition to providing a laboratory for the student, the computer is a powerful aid in understanding basic results of probability theory. For example, the graphical illustration of the approximation of the standardized binomial distributions to the normal curve is a more convincing demonstration of the Central Limit Theorem than many of the formal proofs of this fundamental result. Finally, the computer allows the student to solve problems that do not lend themselves to closed-form formulas such as waiting times in queues. Indeed, the introduction of the computer changes the way in which we look at many problems in probability. For example, being able to calculate exact binomial probabilities for experiments up to 1000 trials changes the way we view the normal and Poisson approximations. PREFACE ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FOR FIRST EDITION Anyone writing a probability text today owes a great debt to William Feller, who taught us all how to make probability come alive as a subject matter. If you ﬁnd an example, an application, or an exercise that you really like, it probably had its origin in Feller’s classic text, An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications. This book had its start with a course given jointly at Dartmouth College with Professor John Kemeny. I am indebted to Professor Kemeny for convincing me that it is both useful and fun to use the computer in the study of probability. He has continuously and generously shared his ideas on probability and computing with me. No less impressive has been the help of John Finn in making the computing an integral part of the text and in writing the programs so that they not only can be easily used, but they also can be understood and modiﬁed by the student to explore further problems. Some of the programs in the text were developed through collaborative eﬀorts with John Kemeny and Thomas Kurtz on a Sloan Foundation project and with John Finn on a Keck Foundation project. I am grateful to both foundations for their support. I am indebted to many other colleagues, students, and friends for valuable com- ments and suggestions. A few whose names stand out are: Eric and Jim Baum- gartner, Tom Bickel, Bob Beck, Ed Brown, Christine Burnley, Richard Crowell, David Griﬀeath, John Lamperti, Beverly Nickerson, Reese Prosser, Cathy Smith, and Chris Thron. The following individuals were kind enough to review various drafts of the manuscript. Their encouragement, criticisms, and suggestions were very helpful. Ron Barnes University of Houston, Downtown College Thomas Fischer Texas A & M University Richard Groeneveld Iowa State University James Kuelbs University of Wisconsin, Madison Greg Lawler Duke University Sidney Resnick Colorado State University Malcom Sherman SUNY Albany Olaf Stackelberg Kent State University Murad Taqqu Boston University Abraham Wender University of North Carolina In addition, I would especially like to thank James Kuelbs, Sidney Resnick, and their students for using the manuscript in their courses and sharing their experience and invaluable suggestions with me. The versatility of Dartmouth’s mathematical word processor PREPPY, written by Professor James Baumgartner, has made it much easier to make revisions, but has made the job of typist extraordinaire Marie Slack correspondingly more challenging. Her high standards and willingness always to try the next more diﬃcult task have made it all possible. Finally, I must thank all the people at Random House who helped during the de- x PREFACE velopment and production of this project. First, among these was my editor Wayne Yuhasz, whose continued encouragement and commitment were very helpful during the development of the manuscript. The entire production team provided eﬃcient and professional support: Margaret Pinette, project manager; Michael Weinstein, production manager; and Kate Bradfor of Editing, Design, and Production, Inc. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FOR SECOND EDITION The debt to William Feller has not diminished in the years between the two editions of this book. His book on probability is likely to remain the classic book in this ﬁeld for many years. The process of revising the ﬁrst edition of this book began with some high-level discussions involving the two present co-authors together with Reese Prosser and John Finn. It was during these discussions that, among other things, the ﬁrst co- author was made aware of the concept of “negative royalties” by Professor Prosser. We are indebted to many people for their help in this undertaking. First and foremost, we thank Mark Kernighan for his almost 40 pages of single-spaced com- ments on the ﬁrst edition. Many of these comments were very thought-provoking; in addition, they provided a student’s perspective on the book. Most of the major changes in the second edition have their genesis in these notes. We would also like to thank Fuxing Hou, who provided extensive help with the typesetting and the ﬁgures. Her incessant good humor in the face of many trials, both big (“we need to change the entire book from Lamstex to Latex”) and small (“could you please move this subscript down just a bit?”), was truly remarkable. We would also like to thank Lee Nave, who typed the entire ﬁrst edition of the book into the computer. Lee corrected most of the typographical errors in the ﬁrst edition during this process, making our job easier. Karl Knaub and Jessica Sklar are responsible for the implementations of the computer programs in Mathematica and Maple, and we thank them for their eﬀorts. We also thank Jessica for her work on the solution manual for the exercises, building on the work done by Gang Wang for the ﬁrst edition. Tom Shemanske and Dana Williams provided much TeX-nical assistance. Their patience and willingness to help, even to the extent of writing intricate TeX macros, are very much appreciated. The following people used various versions of the second edition in their proba- bility courses, and provided valuable comments and criticisms. Marty Arkowitz Dartmouth College Aimee Johnson Swarthmore College Bill Peterson Middlebury College Dan Rockmore Dartmouth College Shunhui Zhu Dartmouth College Reese Prosser and John Finn provided much in the way of moral support and camaraderie throughout this project. Certainly, one of the high points of this entire PREFACE xi endeavour was Professor Prosser’s telephone call to a casino in Monte Carlo, in an attempt to ﬁnd out the rules involving the “prison” in roulette. Peter Doyle motivated us to make this book part of a larger project on the Web, to which others can contribute. He also spent many hours actually carrying out the operation of putting the book on the Web. Finally, we thank Sergei Gelfand and the American Mathematical Society for their interest in our book, their help in its production, and their willingness to let us put the book on the Web. Chapter 1 Discrete Probability Distributions 1.1 Simulation of Discrete Probabilities Probability In this chapter, we shall ﬁrst consider chance experiments with a ﬁnite number of possible outcomes ω1 , ω2 , . . . , ωn . For example, we roll a die and the possible outcomes are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to the side that turns up. We toss a coin with possible outcomes H (heads) and T (tails). It is frequently useful to be able to refer to an outcome of an experiment. For example, we might want to write the mathematical expression which gives the sum of four rolls of a die. To do this, we could let Xi , i = 1, 2, 3, 4, represent the values of the outcomes of the four rolls, and then we could write the expression X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 for the sum of the four rolls. The Xi ’s are called random variables. A random vari- able is simply an expression whose value is the outcome of a particular experiment. Just as in the case of other types of variables in mathematics, random variables can take on diﬀerent values. Let X be the random variable which represents the roll of one die. We shall assign probabilities to the possible outcomes of this experiment. We do this by assigning to each outcome ωj a nonnegative number m(ωj ) in such a way that m(ω1 ) + m(ω2 ) + · · · + m(ω6 ) = 1 . The function m(ωj ) is called the distribution function of the random variable X. For the case of the roll of the die we would assign equal probabilities or probabilities 1/6 to each of the outcomes. With this assignment of probabilities, one could write 2 P (X ≤ 4) = 3 1 2 CHAPTER 1. DISCRETE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS to mean that the probability is 2/3 that a roll of a die will have a value which does not exceed 4. Let Y be the random variable which represents the toss of a coin. In this case, there are two possible outcomes, which we can label as H and T. Unless we have reason to suspect that the coin comes up one way more often than the other way, it is natural to assign the probability of 1/2 to each of the two outcomes. In both of the above experiments, each outcome is assigned an equal probability. This would certainly not be the case in general. For example, if a drug is found to be eﬀective 30 percent of the time it is used, we might assign a probability .3 that the drug is eﬀective the next time it is used and .7 that it is not eﬀective. This last example illustrates the intuitive frequency concept of probability. That is, if we have a probability p that an experiment will result in outcome A, then if we repeat this experiment a large number of times we should expect that the fraction of times that A will occur is about p. To check intuitive ideas like this, we shall ﬁnd it helpful to look at some of these problems experimentally. We could, for example, toss a coin a large number of times and see if the fraction of times heads turns up is about 1/2. We could also simulate this experiment on a computer. Simulation We want to be able to perform an experiment that corresponds to a given set of probabilities; for example, m(ω1 ) = 1/2, m(ω2 ) = 1/3, and m(ω3 ) = 1/6. In this case, one could mark three faces of a six-sided die with an ω1 , two faces with an ω2 , and one face with an ω3 . In the general case we assume that m(ω1 ), m(ω2 ), . . . , m(ωn ) are all rational numbers, with least common denominator n. If n > 2, we can imagine a long cylindrical die with a cross-section that is a regular n-gon. If m(ωj ) = nj /n, then we can label nj of the long faces of the cylinder with an ωj , and if one of the end faces comes up, we can just roll the die again. If n = 2, a coin could be used to perform the experiment. We will be particularly interested in repeating a chance experiment a large num- ber of times. Although the cylindrical die would be a convenient way to carry out a few repetitions, it would be diﬃcult to carry out a large number of experiments. Since the modern computer can do a large number of operations in a very short time, it is natural to turn to the computer for this task. Random Numbers We must ﬁrst ﬁnd a computer analog of rolling a die. This is done on the computer by means of a random number generator. Depending upon the particular software package, the computer can be asked for a real number between 0 and 1, or an integer in a given set of consecutive integers. In the ﬁrst case, the real numbers are chosen in such a way that the probability that the number lies in any particular subinterval of this unit interval is equal to the length of the subinterval. In the second case, each integer has the same probability of being chosen. 1.1. SIMULATION OF DISCRETE PROBABILITIES 3 .203309 .762057 .151121 .623868 .932052 .415178 .716719 .967412 .069664 .670982 .352320 .049723 .750216 .784810 .089734 .966730 .946708 .380365 .027381 .900794 Table 1.1: Sample output of the program RandomNumbers. Let X be a random variable with distribution function m(ω), where ω is in the set {ω1 , ω2 , ω3 }, and m(ω1 ) = 1/2, m(ω2 ) = 1/3, and m(ω3 ) = 1/6. If our computer package can return a random integer in the set {1, 2, ..., 6}, then we simply ask it to do so, and make 1, 2, and 3 correspond to ω1 , 4 and 5 correspond to ω2 , and 6 correspond to ω3 . If our computer package returns a random real number r in the interval (0, 1), then the expression 6r + 1 will be a random integer between 1 and 6. (The notation x means the greatest integer not exceeding x, and is read “ﬂoor of x.”) The method by which random real numbers are generated on a computer is described in the historical discussion at the end of this section. The following example gives sample output of the program RandomNumbers. Example 1.1 (Random Number Generation) The program RandomNumbers generates n random real numbers in the interval [0, 1], where n is chosen by the user. When we ran the program with n = 20, we obtained the data shown in Table 1.1. 2 Example 1.2 (Coin Tossing) As we have noted, our intuition suggests that the probability of obtaining a head on a single toss of a coin is 1/2. To have the computer toss a coin, we can ask it to pick a random real number in the interval [0, 1] and test to see if this number is less than 1/2. If so, we shall call the outcome heads; if not we call it tails. Another way to proceed would be to ask the computer to pick a random integer from the set {0, 1}. The program CoinTosses carries out the experiment of tossing a coin n times. Running this program, with n = 20, resulted in: THTTTHTTTTHTTTTTHHTT. Note that in 20 tosses, we obtained 5 heads and 15 tails. Let us toss a coin n times, where n is much larger than 20, and see if we obtain a proportion of heads closer to our intuitive guess of 1/2. The program CoinTosses keeps track of the number of heads. When we ran this program with n = 1000, we obtained 494 heads. When we ran it with n = 10000, we obtained 5039 heads. 4 CHAPTER 1. DISCRETE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS We notice that when we tossed the coin 10,000 times, the proportion of heads was close to the “true value” .5 for obtaining a head when a coin is tossed. A math- ematical model for this experiment is called Bernoulli Trials (see Chapter 3). The Law of Large Numbers, which we shall study later (see Chapter 8), will show that in the Bernoulli Trials model, the proportion of heads should be near .5, consistent with our intuitive idea of the frequency interpretation of probability. Of course, our program could be easily modiﬁed to simulate coins for which the probability of a head is p, where p is a real number between 0 and 1. 2 In the case of coin tossing, we already knew the probability of the event occurring on each experiment. The real power of simulation comes from the ability to estimate probabilities when they are not known ahead of time. This method has been used in the recent discoveries of strategies that make the casino game of blackjack favorable to the player. We illustrate this idea in a simple situation in which we can compute the true probability and see how eﬀective the simulation is. Example 1.3 (Dice Rolling) We consider a dice game that played an important role in the historical development of probability. The famous letters between Pas- cal and Fermat, which many believe started a serious study of probability, were instigated by a request for help from a French nobleman and gambler, Chevalier de M´r´. It is said that de M´r´ had been betting that, in four rolls of a die, at ee ee least one six would turn up. He was winning consistently and, to get more people to play, he changed the game to bet that, in 24 rolls of two dice, a pair of sixes would turn up. It is claimed that de M´r´ lost with 24 and felt that 25 rolls were ee necessary to make the game favorable. It was un grand scandale that mathematics was wrong. We shall try to see if de M´r´ is correct by simulating his various bets. The ee program DeMere1 simulates a large number of experiments, seeing, in each one, if a six turns up in four rolls of a die. When we ran this program for 1000 plays, a six came up in the ﬁrst four rolls 48.6 percent of the time. When we ran it for 10,000 plays this happened 51.98 percent of the time. We note that the result of the second run suggests that de M´r´ was correct ee in believing that his bet with one die was favorable; however, if we had based our conclusion on the ﬁrst run, we would have decided that he was wrong. Accurate results by simulation require a large number of experiments. 2 The program DeMere2 simulates de M´r´’s second bet that a pair of sixes ee will occur in n rolls of a pair of dice. The previous simulation shows that it is important to know how many trials we should simulate in order to expect a certain degree of accuracy in our approximation. We shall see later that in these types of experiments, a rough rule of thumb is that, at least 95% of the time, the error does not exceed the reciprocal of the square root of the number of trials. Fortunately, for this dice game, it will be easy to compute the exact probabilities. We shall show in the next section that for the ﬁrst bet the probability that de M´r´ wins is ee 1 − (5/6)4 = .518. 1.1. SIMULATION OF DISCRETE PROBABILITIES 5 10 8 6 4 2 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 Figure 1.1: Peter’s winnings in 40 plays of heads or tails. One can understand this calculation as follows: The probability that no 6 turns up on the ﬁrst toss is (5/6). The probability that no 6 turns up on either of the ﬁrst two tosses is (5/6)2 . Reasoning in the same way, the probability that no 6 turns up on any of the ﬁrst four tosses is (5/6)4 . Thus, the probability of at least one 6 in the ﬁrst four tosses is 1 − (5/6)4 . Similarly, for the second bet, with 24 rolls, the probability that de M´r´ wins is 1 − (35/36)24 = .491, and for 25 rolls it ee is 1 − (35/36)25 = .506. Using the rule of thumb mentioned above, it would require 27,000 rolls to have a reasonable chance to determine these probabilities with suﬃcient accuracy to assert that they lie on opposite sides of .5. It is interesting to ponder whether a gambler can detect such probabilities with the required accuracy from gambling experience. Some writers on the history of probability suggest that de M´r´ was, in fact, just ee interested in these problems as intriguing probability problems. Example 1.4 (Heads or Tails) For our next example, we consider a problem where the exact answer is diﬃcult to obtain but for which simulation easily gives the qualitative results. Peter and Paul play a game called heads or tails. In this game, a fair coin is tossed a sequence of times—we choose 40. Each time a head comes up Peter wins 1 penny from Paul, and each time a tail comes up Peter loses 1 penny to Paul. For example, if the results of the 40 tosses are THTHHHHTTHTHHTTHHTTTTHHHTHHTHHHTHHHTTTHH. Peter’s winnings may be graphed as in Figure 1.1. Peter has won 6 pennies in this particular game. It is natural to ask for the probability that he will win j pennies; here j could be any even number from −40 to 40. It is reasonable to guess that the value of j with the highest probability is j = 0, since this occurs when the number of heads equals the number of tails. Similarly, we would guess that the values of j with the lowest probabilities are j = ±40. 6 CHAPTER 1. DISCRETE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS A second interesting question about this game is the following: How many times in the 40 tosses will Peter be in the lead? Looking at the graph of his winnings (Figure 1.1), we see that Peter is in the lead when his winnings are positive, but we have to make some convention when his winnings are 0 if we want all tosses to contribute to the number of times in the lead. We adopt the convention that, when Peter’s winnings are 0, he is in the lead if he was ahead at the previous toss and not if he was behind at the previous toss. With this convention, Peter is in the lead 34 times in our example. Again, our intuition might suggest that the most likely number of times to be in the lead is 1/2 of 40, or 20, and the least likely numbers are the extreme cases of 40 or 0. It is easy to settle this by simulating the game a large number of times and keeping track of the number of times that Peter’s ﬁnal winnings are j, and the number of times that Peter ends up being in the lead by k. The proportions over all games then give estimates for the corresponding probabilities. The program HTSimulation carries out this simulation. Note that when there are an even number of tosses in the game, it is possible to be in the lead only an even number of times. We have simulated this game 10,000 times. The results are shown in Figures 1.2 and 1.3. These graphs, which we call spike graphs, were generated using the program Spikegraph. The vertical line, or spike, at position x on the horizontal axis, has a height equal to the proportion of outcomes which equal x. Our intuition about Peter’s ﬁnal winnings was quite correct, but our intuition about the number of times Peter was in the lead was completely wrong. The simulation suggests that the least likely number of times in the lead is 20 and the most likely is 0 or 40. This is indeed correct, and the explanation for it is suggested by playing the game of heads or tails with a large number of tosses and looking at a graph of Peter’s winnings. In Figure 1.4 we show the results of a simulation of the game, for 1000 tosses and in Figure 1.5 for 10,000 tosses. In the second example Peter was ahead most of the time. It is a remarkable fact, however, that, if play is continued long enough, Peter’s winnings will continue to come back to 0, but there will be very long times between the times that this happens. These and related results will be discussed in Chapter 12. 2 In all of our examples so far, we have simulated equiprobable outcomes. We illustrate next an example where the outcomes are not equiprobable. Example 1.5 (Horse Races) Four horses (Acorn, Balky, Chestnut, and Dolby) have raced many times. It is estimated that Acorn wins 30 percent of the time, Balky 40 percent of the time, Chestnut 20 percent of the time, and Dolby 10 percent of the time. We can have our computer carry out one race as follows: Choose a random number x. If x < .3 then we say that Acorn won. If .3 ≤ x < .7 then Balky wins. If .7 ≤ x < .9 then Chestnut wins. Finally, if .9 ≤ x then Dolby wins. The program HorseRace uses this method to simulate the outcomes of n races. Running this program for n = 10 we found that Acorn won 40 percent of the time, Balky 20 percent of the time, Chestnut 10 percent of the time, and Dolby 30 percent 1.1. SIMULATION OF DISCRETE PROBABILITIES 7 Figure 1.2: Distribution of winnings. Figure 1.3: Distribution of number of times in the lead. 8 CHAPTER 1. DISCRETE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS 1000 plays 20 10 0 200 400 600 800 1000 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 Figure 1.4: Peter’s winnings in 1000 plays of heads or tails. 10000 plays 200 150 100 50 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Figure 1.5: Peter’s winnings in 10,000 plays of heads or tails. 1.1. SIMULATION OF DISCRETE PROBABILITIES 9 of the time. A larger number of races would be necessary to have better agreement with the past experience. Therefore we ran the program to simulate 1000 races with our four horses. Although very tired after all these races, they performed in a manner quite consistent with our estimates of their abilities. Acorn won 29.8 percent of the time, Balky 39.4 percent, Chestnut 19.5 percent, and Dolby 11.3 percent of the time. The program GeneralSimulation uses this method to simulate repetitions of an arbitrary experiment with a ﬁnite number of outcomes occurring with known probabilities. 2 Historical Remarks Anyone who plays the same chance game over and over is really carrying out a sim- ulation, and in this sense the process of simulation has been going on for centuries. As we have remarked, many of the early problems of probability might well have been suggested by gamblers’ experiences. It is natural for anyone trying to understand probability theory to try simple experiments by tossing coins, rolling dice, and so forth. The naturalist Buﬀon tossed a coin 4040 times, resulting in 2048 heads and 1992 tails. He also estimated the number π by throwing needles on a ruled surface and recording how many times the needles crossed a line (see Section 2.1). The English biologist W. F. R. Weldon1 recorded 26,306 throws of 12 dice, and the Swiss scientist Rudolf Wolf2 recorded 100,000 throws of a single die without a computer. Such experiments are very time- consuming and may not accurately represent the chance phenomena being studied. For example, for the dice experiments of Weldon and Wolf, further analysis of the recorded data showed a suspected bias in the dice. The statistician Karl Pearson analyzed a large number of outcomes at certain roulette tables and suggested that the wheels were biased. He wrote in 1894: Clearly, since the Casino does not serve the valuable end of huge lab- oratory for the preparation of probability statistics, it has no scientiﬁc raison d’ˆtre. Men of science cannot have their most reﬁned theories e disregarded in this shameless manner! The French Government must be urged by the hierarchy of science to close the gaming-saloons; it would be, of course, a graceful act to hand over the remaining resources of the Casino to the Acad´mie des Sciences for the endowment of a laboratory e of orthodox probability; in particular, of the new branch of that study, the application of the theory of chance to the biological problems of evolution, which is likely to occupy so much of men’s thoughts in the near future.3 However, these early experiments were suggestive and led to important discov- eries in probability and statistics. They led Pearson to the chi-squared test, which 1 T. C. Fry, Probability and Its Engineering Uses, 2nd ed. (Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1965). 2 E. Czuber, Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung, 3rd ed. (Berlin: Teubner, 1914). 3 K. Pearson, “Science and Monte Carlo,” Fortnightly Review , vol. 55 (1894), p. 193; cited in S. M. Stigler, The History of Statistics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986). 10 CHAPTER 1. DISCRETE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS is of great importance in testing whether observed data ﬁt a given probability dis- tribution. By the early 1900s it was clear that a better way to generate random numbers was needed. In 1927, L. H. C. Tippett published a list of 41,600 digits obtained by selecting numbers haphazardly from census reports. In 1955, RAND Corporation printed a table of 1,000,000 random numbers generated from electronic noise. The advent of the high-speed computer raised the possibility of generating random num- bers directly on the computer, and in the late 1940s John von Neumann suggested that this be done as follows: Suppose that you want a random sequence of four-digit numbers. Choose any four-digit number, say 6235, to start. Square this number to obtain 38,875,225. For the second number choose the middle four digits of this square (i.e., 8752). Do the same process starting with 8752 to get the third number, and so forth. More modern methods involve the concept of modular arithmetic. If a is an integer and m is a positive integer, then by a (mod m) we mean the remainder when a is divided by m. For example, 10 (mod 4) = 2, 8 (mod 2) = 0, and so forth. To generate a random sequence X0 , X1 , X2 , . . . of numbers choose a starting number X0 and then obtain the numbers Xn+1 from Xn by the formula Xn+1 = (aXn + c) (mod m) , where a, c, and m are carefully chosen constants. The sequence X0 , X1 , X2 , . . . is then a sequence of integers between 0 and m − 1. To obtain a sequence of real numbers in [0, 1), we divide each Xj by m. The resulting sequence consists of rational numbers of the form j/m, where 0 ≤ j ≤ m − 1. Since m is usually a very large integer, we think of the numbers in the sequence as being random real numbers in [0, 1). For both von Neumann’s squaring method and the modular arithmetic technique the sequence of numbers is actually completely determined by the ﬁrst number. Thus, there is nothing really random about these sequences. However, they produce numbers that behave very much as theory would predict for random experiments. To obtain diﬀerent sequences for diﬀerent experiments the initial number X0 is chosen by some other procedure that might involve, for example, the time of day.4 During the Second World War, physicists at the Los Alamos Scientiﬁc Labo- ratory needed to know, for purposes of shielding, how far neutrons travel through various materials. This question was beyond the reach of theoretical calculations. Daniel McCracken, writing in the Scientiﬁc American, states: The physicists had most of the necessary data: they knew the average distance a neutron of a given speed would travel in a given substance before it collided with an atomic nucleus, what the probabilities were that the neutron would bounce oﬀ instead of being absorbed by the nucleus, how much energy the neutron was likely to lose after a given 4 For a detailed discussion of random numbers, see D. E. Knuth, The Art of Computer Pro- gramming, vol. II (Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1969).

Tải về miễn phí